Climate science under attack: What can CSOs do?
We are used to debating policy responses to the planetary crisis – whether this incentive or that mandate is more effective; whether investment A delivers outcome B; whether one pathway is faster, cheaper, or fairer.
But in recent years, the focus has shifted upstream, with powerful politicians no longer contesting potential policy responses to the science, but rejecting the scientific foundations themselves.
What happens when politics shouts louder than science? What can we do to protect and champion science when it’s under attack from all sides? And where does that leave the CSO?
Political attacks and collapsing consensus
The assault on climate science by the Trump administration is well-documented.
Executive Orders since his second inauguration have rolled back pollutant regulation, restricted climate language in state processes, and reversed progress on the phase-out of coal. The administration withdrew (again) from the Paris Agreement, and also from international and UN agencies including IPBES, the UNFCCC, the IPCC, and the IUCN.
These actions represent not just deregulation, but in fact the wholesale de-legitimisation of science as the basis for policymaking.
At the global level, the trend is different: less to do with science denial and more to do with weakening cohesion and increasing fragmentation. Countries no longer appear willing to compromise for the benefit of all, opting instead to dig in their heels in dogged pursuit of shorter-term domestic interests. This dynamic is increasingly visible at COPs, where it hampers meaningful progress – which my team at Ecologi have covered in detail.
It can even affect the way science is collated and reported. When the UN Environment Programme came to launch the seventh Global Environmental Outlook (‘GEO-7’) report at the end of 2025, the final report was published without the customary ‘Summary for Policymakers’ (SPM). That’s because an SPM is a political summary of the text, which has to be agreed by the parties – and in the final meeting to launch GEO-7 in Nairobi in December, the countries would not agree.
Alongside direct political attacks, this signals a breakdown in how science translates into international policy.
Climate action continues
Nevertheless, the work of sustainability persists. Technical, economic and operational efforts continue to coalesce around science: standards are converging; integrity initiatives are strengthening environmental markets.
- Public awareness of climate risk is at historic highs;
- Subnational actors are stepping into climate leadership roles;
- The private sector continues to invest in the transition.
This coalescence shows three things about our climate response: that it has not collapsed entirely; that its centre of gravity has shifted beyond nation states; and that it is resilient under stress.
The role of CSOs to provide stability on unstable terrain
Whilst the politics, economics, and social contract have undergone major shifts in the last couple of years, our scientific reality has not.
Executives face a choice to either relinquish progress in response to transient external forces, or hold fast. In these periods of volatility, organisations look to their leaders. This is where the CSO comes in. To provide stability, the CSO must:
- Be consistent. Maintain science-based targets and transition plans, even as domestic policy signals fluctuate. Internal coherence and alignment with science matters ever more, in a fragmented policy terrain.
- Call out fake science. Where overwhelming scientific evidence is being ignored, distorted or undermined, call it out. Don’t be afraid to be explicit about what is evidence-based and what is not.
- Safeguard the infrastructure around the science. Support the data, institutions, and partnerships that make climate science usable – particularly where public systems are under strain.
Using risk management as a tool to activate and validate science
Further, at a macro-level, there is a gap in the existing science-policy infrastructure which CSOs are well-placed to fill: risk assessment.
A coherent response to the climate and nature crisis has three core steps:
- Identify the scale and qualities of the problem (science)
- Assess how it will affect systems we care about (risk assessment)
- Design and execute a response (policy and strategy)
Science comes in from the IPCC, IPBES and others (step 1) and governments – at least in principle – are responsible for translating the scientific reality into policy responses (step 3).
But the middle step is underdeveloped, and it is one CSOs can lead.
Moving from ‘what is projected to happen?’ to ‘what should we do about it?’ is not straightforward. It requires a clear view of exposure, vulnerability, and materiality: how those global projections translate into specific risk exposures for people, assets, operations, supply chains, and markets.
Through climate scenario analysis, transition risk modelling, resilience planning, and a plethora of other responsibilities, CSOs are already bridging that gap. They assess exposure and inform responses at both institutional and economic levels.
What really matters and why
In all of this, what matters is not simply the application of the science to instruct real-world corporate behaviour, it is the reaffirmation and reinforcement of science as the basis for political and economic behaviour in the first place.
In a context where the legitimacy of science is being questioned, that role – already part of the CSO’s remit – becomes a critical anchor. Disciplined risk management provides ballast, grounding decisions in science and translating uncertainty into action.
It allows the CSO to act as a firm hand on the tiller, offering direction and confidence in the direction of travel, even as external conditions remain volatile.
Sam Jackson, Director of Climate Science and Impact at Ecologi
Ecologi is the UK's most trusted climate action platform for every step of your climate journey. Speak with one of their climate experts today at ecologi.com
Member discussion